SBC Ignores Cries For Naked DSL
from the how-many-requests-move-up-the-chain? dept
Not a surprise at all, but SBC claims that the reason they’re not offering naked DSL is because no one seems to want it. While they’re probably correct that people are interested in bundled services, that doesn’t mean people don’t want naked DSL. From the comments on this issue (and my own experience) it’s obvious that plenty of people do want it — but SBC is making a tidy profit in forcing people like me (who has a phone line that isn’t hooked up to any phone, and whose number I don’t even know) to bundle useless phone service. Of course, the whole resistance to naked DSL should be proof positive that the market for broadband services in the US isn’t competitive at all. If there really were a competitive market place, I’d have other options that aren’t force bundled. Instead, the only options are forced bundled DSL or force bundled cable (which either requires cable TV, or makes it ridiculously expensive). And, since cable rates remain artificially high and cable has shown itself to be ridiculously unreliable it seems that we’re stuck for the time being. With Presidential promises on broadband proving to be nothing more than talk (as expected) and the FCC’s idea of “competition” in broadband to be a technology (BPL) that almost never seems to work, it doesn’t seem like things will change any time soon. Then, of course, when local governments actually try to do anything, they’re attacked as being communists for trying to offer broadband. Oh well. I guess we’re learning that the FCC’s morality/indecency campaign wasn’t just about covering up Janet Jackson’s nudity, but DSL’s as well.
Comments on “SBC Ignores Cries For Naked DSL”
I want it
I have a storage site / business site that I have DSL in for security. I have to have a phone number for no reason there to have DSL in for my security. I would drop the phone in a heartbeat. Of course the cost of dsl would go up another $25 if I did that though, so this argument is probably muted.
Also, the reason they don’t want bare DSL is that you only need to have DSL + vonnage (less than the $50 / line unlimited “bargain” they offer). or DSL + some way to terminate SIP phone calls into numbered phones, and you’d need no phone service of any kind either.
This is a case where unbundling would make incredible sense.
Same with the cell companies, but that’s another topic.
Re: I want it
Your argument is not MUTED. It’s MOOT. Man am I sick of that mistake. Also people:
it’s = it is
its = possessive (e.g. its malodorous stink)
And “irregardless” is bad usage. Use “regardless”.
Re: Re: I want it
Grammar-and-usage-nazi I hope you fall into a well and die.
This is a blog, not a professional letter, so who gives a flying *uck if someone makes a few typos misses an apostrophe or incorrectly uses a word. There is a time and a place for grammar-and-usage-nazi’s and this really isn’t it asshole.
Re: Re: Re: I want it
“Usage Nazi”: There are a lot of people out there who don’t write the English language according to your standards. Most of them don’t really care, and you’re wasting your breath pointing out their mistakes. If you let it bother you, you’re adding a lot of unnecessary aggravation to your life. You will be a less happy person.
Anonymous Coward: Spelling/grammar trolls are abound on the internet. You will also be happier if you just let it go. Take comfort in the fact that they’re spinning their wheels about, really, nothing. The troll doesn’t care about your opinion of their trolling.
I worked in the telco business for years and agree naked DSL is a good idea. I know certain telcos are working on it as I have contacts. However, my experience with cable net access is much better than with DSL. My cable, in 1.5 years, has gone down once for 30 minutes. I stayed on the phone with my DSL provider in contrast.
Things change …
SBC Local required for DSL
I was going to change my ISP to SBC DSL but SBC screwed up our switch to one of their bundled services (we still use the line). They wouldn’t give us the long distance services we wanted, because “we didn’t already have their long distance service”?!?! [Yes that was exactly how they explained it to us several times.]
Anyways, we didn’t even want to mess with their DSL services at that point (we were already internet-less for a week) and decided to switch all of our calling plans to AT&T (including local). All of the “major” DSL carriers that served our area required SBC local service for some strange/dumb reason. Except AT&T, which went through Covad. And we also haven’t really paid attention to the news much and didn’t realize that SBC was acquiring AT&T. So we switched to the same company or something like that.
If cable were cheaper, we would have just switched to Comcast (which used to be AT&T Broadband in our area) and forgot about the DSL service. We haven’t quite gotten to the point where we are only using our cell phones, but we are getting closer.
No Subject Given
I was going to say, in the New Jersey area, DSL is horrible and cable is king. Cablevision, although I hate their guts, has the best internet service out of everyone in the area. It is consistent to the point where I had one outage over a three year period.
The prices are a bit high, but then again, with four people in the house, it’s a bargain compared other alternatives like going back to dialup.
get naked dsl on SBC lines
You can get naked DSL (in some locations, like Chicago) over SBC lines if SpeakEasy DSL is available in your area. check them out at speakeasy.net- they also rock because their TOS are great, you can host your own servers, and even resell your bandwith, or open a wifi hotspot- all completely legally. Try doing that with cable! i have had speakeasy for about 10 months and I couldn’t be happier
Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
I called Speakeasy about naked DSL in my area. The answer was that there were two prices. If I had SBC local service, it was much cheaper (but still more expensive than if I just went with SBC). If I didn’t have SBC local, it was ridiculously expensive.
Re: Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
mike, that stinks- i’m paying $60 a month right now for speakeasy, the cheapest i could get with SBC+local was around 75. granted, i’m in chicago so there is a cable monopoly in my neighborhood that makes cable much more expensive than in other neighborhoods where there is a choice (i’m stuck with comcast, some neighborhoods also have rcn, which has the best digital cable/modem combo deal i’m aware of)- let me know what the quote from speakeasy was vs. sbc, i’d love to know if i could haggle with them over pricing!
Re: Re: Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
SBC was $26 for DSL + $12 for phone.
Speakeasy, without SBC was $99
Speakeasy, with SBC was $69
Re: Re: Re:2 get naked dsl on SBC lines
wow, that is crazy. like i said i have speakeasy service and it’s “onelink” no phone line required. check it out here: http://speakeasy.net/home/dsl/?service=homeplus&type=onelink
i couldn’t love it more, and it’s a decent deal for 1.5 down/768 up, but there is no way i’d pay 99 for it. 55 is pretty much my limit- which is much less than i’d pay for cable+cable modem. I know the speakeasy modem itself is 99, but I’m sure the service is 55. anyway, hope that helps- it’s still not as cheap as SBC/Yahoo dsl, but I’m betting the quality is better, and the TOS are much better. of course if you’re not concerned about those, then it really doesn’t matter. good luck searching!
Re: Re: Re:3 get naked dsl on SBC lines
speakeasy is 56 clams.
sbc dsl WITH the local phone package is only 40 clams. you are getting scammed.
Re: Re: Re:2 get naked dsl on SBC lines
my current phone bill is 25 clams
speakeasy naked dsl is 56 clams.
sbc phone service plus DSL is 40 clams (15 clams for DSL)
definitely can’t figure out why i can’t get naked dsl. need it bad.
Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
I would not recommend SPEAKEASY. Not even if they are the only choice. Their customer service sucks. They will not even respond to emails without an automated response. What kind of internet provider refuses to provide support via email? They really have been horrible to have to deal with.
SBC is better
any one with SBC is lucky, where I am from you have to get a phone line for DSL, obviously, but there is only ONE phone service in town and its 25 a month!! and then those morons charge ANOTHER 25 for 256k dsl!!!!! sure naked DSL would be nice but with sbc, its not that bad of a deal.